^{page 157 note 1} Vol. xvi., the last published at the time the paper was read.

^{page 160 note 1} Mr. Leadam thought that ‘the duke's lands’ must mean those belonging to the dukedom of Suffolk, not to the earldom. But Symson would take his way to the Continent through Kent, and I do not find that the dukes of Suffolk held any lands in Kent except about Greenwich and Deptford. Besides, I think it is clear that his mission was to pick up information abroad from Yorkist refugees.

^{page 163 note 1} Mr. Leadam thinks this date is a mistake, which it certainly is if the date of the examination at the foot, ‘xx. daye of July,’ is accurate. But I have no doubt this latter date is wrong.

^{page 165 note 1} Vitellius A xvi. in the Cottonian Library.

^{page 168 note 1} Hist, of Kent, iii. 46, note (c).

^{page 169 note 1} See , G. E. C., Compute Peerage, vi. 141note (d)Google Scholar, subOrmond. It is to be noted that a patent of March 15, 1462, speaks of ‘Eleanor, late the wife of James, earl of Wiltshire, attainted &c.,’ she being then alive, which is suggestive of his death, though not conclusive (Pat. Roll Ed. IV.). He is first spoken of as ‘deceased’ in a patent of November 21, 1464, though this again may have been simply a presumption from his disappearance. Ibid.

^{page 169 note 2} Rot. Parl. I Ed. IV. v. 480 b.

^{page 169 note 3} G. E. C. vi. 141; Carte's Ormonde, p. xlii.

^{page 169 note 4} Carte, Thomas, Hist, of James, Duke of Ormonde, 1736, Introd. p. xlGoogle Scholar.

^{page 170 note 1} Carte, , op. cit. p. xliiGoogle Scholar. It is an interesting illustration of heredity that in 1712 Prince Eugene described the duke of Ormond as ‘the finest cavalier and most complete gentleman that England bred, being the glory of that nation,’ etc. (Hist. MSS. Com., Portland MSS. v. 157.)

^{page 170 note 2} But see infra the Pat. Roll showing that it must have been 1477.

^{page 170 note 3} Carte, xlii, who, from an exemplification under the Great Seal seen by him at Kilkenny, dates the Act the Friday after St. Margaret's day, 16 Ed. IV. As St. Margaret's day, July 20, fell in that year on a Sunday, the date of the repeat would be July 25, 1476, so that he lived less than a year as earl of Ormond.

^{page 170 note 4} Rot. Part. vi. 26. Cf. Pat. Rolls Ed. IV. October 20, 1473.

^{page 171 note 1} Pat. Rolls Ed. IV. p. 53.

^{page 171 note 2} Ibid. May 16, 1478. The estates are set out ibid. October 20, 1467, which patent vested them in trustees for life of Thomas Butler.

^{page 171 note 3} Carte, xliii.

^{page 171 note 4} Pat. Rolls Rich. III., February 1, 1485. Cf. ibid. April 10, 1485.

^{page 171 note 5} Ibid. February 16, 1485.

^{page 171 note 6} Metcalfe, W. C., Book of Knight, p. 8Google Scholar.

^{page 171 note 7} Ed. Gandavi, 1557, lib. xxvi. p. 1437.

^{page 171 note 8} Rot. Part vi. 296 b.

^{page 171 note 9} , G. E.C., Complete Peerage, viii. 165, vi. 143Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 1} SirCox, Richard, Hibernia Anglicana, 1689, part 1, p. 182Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 2} Campbell, W., Materials, ii. 80. (1486)Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 3} In 1495 a n ac t °f attainder was passed against Francis Lovell, Lord Lovell, for his support of Lambert Simnel. At the end of the act is a proviso that it is not to be prejudicial to Thomas, earl of Ormond, in respect of any of the possessions to which he had been restored by the act of 1 Hen. VII.(Rot. Parl. vi. 503 b). A possible explanation of this is that Lord Lovell was seised of certain lands to the use of Lord Ormond which, but for the proviso, would be included in the general terms of forfeiture.

^{page 172 note 4} G. E. C. vi. 143.

^{page 173 note 1} Montgomery was knighted by Edward IV. at the battle of Towton ( Metcalfe, W. C., Book of Knights, p. 2Google Scholar), and received numerous grants from that king (see index to Patent Rolls, Ed. IV.). For the Blounts see Select Cases in the Star Chamber (Selden Society, 1902) p. 64, n. 2Google Scholar. The Berkeleys had held posts at Edward IV.'s court, among them Sir Maurice Berkeley, the brother, and Sir William Berkeley, the nephew of Sir Edward Berkeley ( Smyth, J., Lives of the Berkeleys, 1883, i. 352, 353)Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 2} Anstis, , Register of the Garter, 1724, i. 199Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 3} , G. E.C., Complete Peerage, v. 398Google Scholar.

^{page 173 note 4} Index to Patent Rolls, Ed. IV.

^{page 173 note 5} Select Cases in the Star Chamber, l.s.c.

^{page 171 note 6} He probably rallied after Bosworth, for he was dispossessed of his office of bailiff of Burley, in the New Forest, on December 5, 1485( Campbell, , Materials, i. 195Google Scholar), but was reinstated a few days after, December 11 (ibid. 212). His kinsman, Richard Berkeley, son and heir of William Berkeley, was attainted in 1485, and restored in 1503 (Rot. Part i. 552 a).

^{page 173 note 7} Metcalfe, p. 19.

^{page 174 note 1} Patent Rolls, July 13, 22 Ed. IV. p. 313.

^{page 174 note 2} Genealogist, 1884, N.S. i. 78.

^{page 174 note 3} Rot. Parl. vi. 336, 340 b.

^{page 175 note 1} Statutes of the Realm, II Hen. VII. c. 29.

^{page 175 note 2} Dublin, 1786.

^{page 176 note 1} Ware, , Annals of Ireland, 1703, p. 17Google Scholar; cited in Dict. Nat. Biog. sub Ormonde, Sir James.

^{page 176 note 2} Mistakenly conjectured to be 19 Hen. VIII., at which date both Sir James and the earl were dead, in Graves and Prim, History of St. Canice, Dublin, 1857, p. 193, note. The accusation made against Sir James in Sir Piers Butler's letter that he ‘toke upon him all the rule of the counties of Kylkenny and Tippare and called himself Earl of Ormond,’ is thus explained. The same charge had been made against him by his rival Kildare in 1492, but apparently without producing any change in the earl's attitude to Sir James. ( Gilbert's, J. T.Viceroys of Ireland, 1865, p. 447Google Scholar.)

^{page 177 note 1} Graves, and Prim, , History of St. Canice, pp. 191, 195Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 2} Gilbert, J. T., Viceroys of Ireland, 1865, pp. 461–472Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 3} We do not know the date of the ‘Act of Restoration, ’ but that it had passed before July 1505 appears from a deed dated July 9, 20 Hen. VII., by which the earl appointed his heir-at-law, Sir Piers Butler, his attorney and deputy in Ireland, on much the same terms as those granted to SirOrmond, James (History of St. Canice, p. 199Google Scholar, note).

^{page 178 note 1} See Trans. R. Hist. Soc. 1903, p. 137.

^{page 178 note 2} Rot. Parl. vi. 245 b.

^{page 178 note 3} March 8, 1486; Campbell, W., Materials, i. 369, 370, 403Google Scholar.

^{page 178 note 4} September 29, 1486, ibid. ii. 38.

^{page 178 note 5} March 2, 1486, ibid. 99.

^{page 179 note 1} March 8, 1487, ibid. 104.

^{page 179 note 2} April 12, 1487, ibid. 107, 141.

^{page 179 note 3} May 25, 1487, ibid. 155.

^{page 179 note 4} Ibid. p. 156.

^{page 179 note 5} December 20, 1487, ibid. 217.

^{page 179 note 6} Ibid. p. 560.

^{page 179 note 7} Hasted, , Hist. of Kent, 1790, iii. 82 n. zGoogle Scholar.

^{page 179 note 8} Rot. Parl. vi. 487 b;Statutes of the Realm, II Hen. VII. c. 49.

^{page 179 note 9} The dates in the case and those of the Diet. Nat. Biog., which gives April 8, 1506, as the date of Sir Richard's departure for Palestine, show that this is a mistake for July of last year, i.e. 1505.

^{page 180 note 1} According to the list of sheriffs published by the Record Office in 1898, p. 68, John Langley, Esq., was sheriff from Novembers, 1504, to January 4, 1506.

^{page 180 note 2} On default of the debtor, the creditor under the Statute Staple (27 Ed. III., st. 2. c. 9) was empowered to seize his goods and lands, ‘and he to whom the debt is due shall have estate of freehold in the lands and tenements which shall be delivered to him by virtue of the same process.’ Sir Richard very likely only enjoyed a freehold estate for life, but if he were owner in fee simple, the name of Nailer, without doubt a relation of Lady Bergavenny, suggests that this was a collusive process, since Sir Richard's son inherited his dwelling-house at Rolvenden.

^{page 180 note 3} In his biography in the Diet. Nat. Biog. Dr. Gairdner mentions that Sir Richard also took out a special pardon dated April 4, 1506, ‘really a discharge of liabilities in respect of his offices of master of the ordnance and of the armoury and also as master of the horse (Patent, 21 Hen. VII. pt. i. m. 30).

^{page 181 note 1} Metcalfe, W. C., Book of Knights, p. 9Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 2} Campbell, , Materials, ii. 39, 40Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 3} Calendar of Inquisitions post Mortem, Hen. VII., 1898, i. 1235.

^{page 181 note 4} Dict. Nat. Biog. sub Vaux, Sir Nicholas.

^{page 181 note 5} Will proved in that year. Smith, J. C. C., Canterbury Wills, 1893, i, 243Google Scholar.

^{page 182 note 1} S. P. Dom. Hen. VIII. i. 5628, November 24, 1514.

^{page 182 note 2} Pylgrymage of Sir Richard Guylforde, Camden Soc. 1851, Introd. p. xiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 182 note 3} S. P. Dom. Hen. VIII. i. 690.

^{page 182 note 4} L.and P.i. 130. Sir Richard was at this time Comptroller of the Household.

^{page 182 note 5} Ibid. 132.

^{page 182 note 6} Dict. Nat. Biog., art. De la Pole, Edmund.

^{page 183 note 1} Rot. Part. vi. 548 b. But apparently this alienation was not recognised by the Crown, notwithstanding that the Parliament, which met in January 1503, excluded it from the forfeitures involved in the attainder of Edmund de la Pole (see ibid., and cp. S. P. Dom. Hen. VIII. i. 4205), where it appears that on June II, 1513, a grant was made for life to Margaret, widow of Edmund de la Pole, of, inter alia, the manor of Philbertis, Berks, forfeited by her husband, which on August 8, 1510, had been granted to the Lady Katharine Gordon, widow of Perkin Warbeck(ibid. 1203).

^{page 183 note 2} Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Hen. VII. ed. by Gairdner, J., 1861, i. 231Google Scholar.

^{page 183 note 3} It is suggestive that the only person of the name whose will has been proved in the sixteenth century in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, came from Kent, being described as Bartilmewe Flamank, of Estgrenewich, Kent, and St. Mary Matfelon, Middlesex. Will proved 1527. (J. C. C. Smith, index.)

^{page 184 note 1} Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII. i. 233.

^{page 184 note 2} Ibid. p. 233

^{page 184 note 3} Ibid. p. 237.

^{page 184 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 185 note 1} Hasted, iii. 323.

^{page 185 note 2} Dict. Nat. Biog.

^{page 185 note 3} Hasted, ii. 475, 483, n. 3.

^{page 185 note 4} He was not the son, but probably the nephew, of Sir Thomas Bourchier ‘the elder’; (see Campbell, W., Materials, ii. 535)Google Scholar, son of the Earl of Essex, who received numerous grants and offices from Edward IV. (see Calendar of Pat. Rolls Ed. IV.), but deserted Richard II., notwithstanding that he had received grants from him (see Campbell, , Materials, ii. 116)Google Scholar, on the eve of Bosworth (Polydore Vergil, Camden Soc. 1844, p. 220). Sir Thomas Bourchier ‘the elder’ died in 1491 without suiviving issue, though twice married (see Inq.post Mortem, Hen, VII. i. 682, 684)Google Scholar. The Earl of Essex left a large family.

^{page 185 note 5} Campbell, W., Materials, i. 311Google Scholar.

^{page 185 note 6} November 28, 1469, Cal. of Patent Rolls, Ed. IV. p. 182.

^{page 185 note 7} Campbell, W., Materials, i. 364Google Scholar.

^{page 186 note 1} SirDugdale, W., Warwickshire, 1765, p. 595 bGoogle Scholar.

^{page 186 note 2} Cal. of Pat. Rolls, Ed. IV. p. 247.

^{page 186 note 3} September 21, 1485. Campbell, W., Materials, i. 26Google Scholar.

^{page 186 note 4} Metcalfe, W. C., Book of Knights, p. 18Google Scholar; Haydn, J., Book of Dignities, ed. 1890, p. 758Google Scholar.

^{page 186 note 5} Campbell, W., Materials, ii. 164Google Scholar.

^{apge 186 note 6} Cox, , Hibernia Anglicana, p. 186Google Scholar; Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII. ii. 374.

^{page 186 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 186 note 8} Dict. Nat. Biog.

^{page 186 note 9} Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII. ii. 375.

^{page 187 note 1} Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII. i. xxxiii and note. Dr. Gairdner also calls attention to a letter from de Puebla, the Spanish resident in London, dated January 11, 1500, about six weeks after Warwick's execution, which confirms ‘the importance attached by Ferdinand to the execution.’ The letter is printed ibid. p. 113.

^{page 188 note 1} Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII. i. 234–235.

^{page 188 note 2} Ibid. p. xli.

^{page 189 note 1} Bull of Innocent VIII., 1486, Rymer, , Feed. xii. 297Google Scholar.

^{page 189 note 2} Hall's, Chron. 1809, p. 496Google Scholar; Grafton's, Chron. 1809, p. 225Google Scholar. Tyrrell, had undoubtedly held the castle of Guisnes against the King (see Letters and Papers of Richard III. and Henry VII. p. xliii)Google Scholar, and he had received and succoured Edmund de la Pole on the occasion of his first flight in 1499. Wyndham had been a Yorkist, and as a trustworthy soldier had been nominated a commissioner of array for Norfolk by Richard, III. (Pat. Rolls R. III. p. 397)Google Scholar, bu had been received into favour by Henry VII. and knighted for his valour at the battle of Stoke (June 9, 1487), when Suffolk's elder brother, John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln, had been defeated and slain. (Metcalfe, W. C., Book of Knights, p. 16Google Scholar.)

^{page 190 note 1} S. P. For. and Dom. , Hen. VIII. vi. 1164Google Scholar, September 27, 1533.

^{page 190 note 2} See ibid. 568, May 31, 1533.

^{page 190 note 3} Ibid. vii. 1368, November 3, 1534.

^{page 191 note 1} See Letters and Papers of.Richard III. and Henry VII. i. liv, 280.

^{page 192 note 1} Adrian de Croy to Maximilian, March 23, 1506, ibid. lv.

^{page 192 note 2} Polyd, , VergAnglicæ Historiæ (Gandavi, 1557) lib. xxvi. p. 1556Google Scholar. Grafton's and Hall's Chronicles are here mere translations of Polydore.